TSA patting down 6 year old threat

[Zona]

All this debate would end if the terrorists use a child to get a bomb on board a plane.

Its scary, but true.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

All this debate would end if the terrorists use a child to get a bomb on board a plane.

Its scary, but true.

Maybe the Government will stage and plant a bomb on a child at some point? That would certainly please all the stupid Government Goose Steppers no? Maybe that's coming next? It wouldn't surprise me. Hasn't Wikileaks taught these Goose Steppers anything? Guess not. How sad.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Boy,the Goose Steppers will say anything to defend the Police State. They did the very same thing in Nazi Germany. It's very sad. How much humiliation are we willing to take in the name of "Security?" Looks like the Goose Steppers will take anything and like it. So it's time to write them off i guess. How many Americans will stand up to this Government tyranny? I guess we'll see in the coming years. Things will get much worse. They're testing us right now to see how much humiliation we will take. I just hope & pray the People decide to stand up.

You're sounding more like a liberal every day.........

 

[jillian]

I used to work for the TSA and we would get alerts on what people tried to smuggle and how they tried to smuggle things. Let me just say, you have to check everyone...kids included.

The Constitution says you need a warrant to search people.

no. it doesn't. there are many exceptions to the need for a warrant... exigent circumstances being one of them.

try again.

thanks.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Boy,the Goose Steppers will say anything to defend the Police State. They did the very same thing in Nazi Germany. It's very sad. How much humiliation are we willing to take in the name of "Security?" Looks like the Goose Steppers will take anything and like it. So it's time to write them off i guess. How many Americans will stand up to this Government tyranny? I guess we'll see in the coming years. Things will get much worse. They're testing us right now to see how much humiliation we will take. I just hope & pray the People decide to stand up.

You're sounding more like a liberal every day.........

Nah there are no real Liberals anymore. Those pretending to be Liberals now are actually just Socialists/Progressives. That's why they're doing much of the Government Goose Stepping these days. I'm a Conservative. A real Conservative would oppose such Government oppression. I real Liberal would too i guess. But i am a Conservative.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why everybody needs to be searched.

Hindawi affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tell me how searching a pregnant woman would have found the bomb in her checked luggage.

I dare you.

Like checking the baggage of the 911 hijackers would have found the knives on their body?
Sheesh.

What makes you think they didn't find the knives they had, if they had knives? Box cutters were perfectly legal at the time, and they could have dropped them in the tray with their spare change.

Sheesh

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I used to work for the TSA and we would get alerts on what people tried to smuggle and how they tried to smuggle things. Let me just say, you have to check everyone...kids included.

The Constitution says you need a warrant to search people.

no. it doesn't. there are many exceptions to the need for a warrant... exigent circumstances being one of them.

try again.

thanks.

Is this one of the Constitutional things you are never wrong about? Can you show exactly where the Constitution says anything about exceptions, including exigent circumstances?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Most German Citizens went along with Nazi atrocities. Unfortunately i'm seeing the same menatality here in the U.S. Our Government is in the process of testing us to see how much humiliation we are willing to endure in the name of "Security." Looks like the Government Goose Steppers are just fine with any humiliations. What does this say about our Nation's future? The Government will only keep testing and pushing. I don't see a bright future for our Nation. A full-fledged Police State is a very real possibility. It really is very sad.

 

[jillian]

The Constitution says you need a warrant to search people.

no. it doesn't. there are many exceptions to the need for a warrant... exigent circumstances being one of them.

try again.

thanks.

Is this one of the Constitutional things you are never wrong about? Can you show exactly where the Constitution says anything about exceptions, including exigent circumstances?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

i love the potshots you "constitutionalists" like to toss around. nice that you can quote the constitution. maybe you should actually try reality i.e., caselaw:

Read/learn... it will do you good cause i'm really bored of you pretend constitutionalists...

Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement: Teaching Guide

*General Rule of the Warrant Requirement: Searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

5 Categorical Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement:

(1) Exigent Circumstances: anytime police can claim emergency and are required to act immediately, it is reasonable to execute a warrantless search or seizure.
* Many situations create circumstances under which it is unreasonable to expect the officer to obtain a warrant before search or arrest
-(4 Common Situations): Hot Pursuit of a Suspect, Threat of Imminent
Destruction of Evidence, Threat of Officer’s Safety, Suspect Escape.
Cases:
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978): (No “Murder Scene” Exception) States must meet a substantial burden to demonstrate an exceptional situation justifying a new exception to warrant requirement under the 4th and 14th Amendments.

Wesh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984): The gravity of the suspected offense is a factor to be considered in determining whether the exigent circumstances exception to the 4th may be invoked. (Minor Offenses May Not invoke an Exception)

Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967): [Fleeing Suspects] The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to delay in the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others.

Mendez v. Colorado, 986 P.2d 285 (Colo. 1999): [Destruction of Evidence] The smell of marijuana smoke justified dispensing with a warrant, “This odor indicated that evidence of a crime, that is, possession of marijuana was in the process of being burned and thereby destroyed.

(2) The Plain View Doctrine: An object of an incriminating nature may be seized without a warrant if it is in the plain view of a police officer lawfully present at the scene.
3 Elements:
(1) Lawful vantage point – At the time at which the police get to the location, they had to have been there lawfully.
Right to access to the object - An officer must have a lawful access to the object itself. (Physical Access)
(3) Right to seize is immediately apparent- The seizure of an article is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them.

more at link:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...28D5CA&usg=AFQjCNGPb3TWoPQ4SkFKyXckWp5yb8Wf8A

 

[jillian]

Tell me how searching a pregnant woman would have found the bomb in her checked luggage.

I dare you.

Like checking the baggage of the 911 hijackers would have found the knives on their body?
Sheesh.

What makes you think they didn't find the knives they had, if they had knives? Box cutters were perfectly legal at the time, and they could have dropped them in the tray with their spare change.

Sheesh

generally they respond to things that have occurred before. so the 9.11 hijackers led to certain types of things being prohibited. then the shoe bomber resulted in a different type of search.

like i've said before. you have no constitutional right to fly. feel free to take a bus.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

no. it doesn't. there are many exceptions to the need for a warrant... exigent circumstances being one of them.

try again.

thanks.

Is this one of the Constitutional things you are never wrong about? Can you show exactly where the Constitution says anything about exceptions, including exigent circumstances?

i love the potshots you idiots toss around. nice that you can quote the constitution. maybe you should actually try reality i.e., caselaw:

Read/learn... it will do you good cause i'm really bored of you pretend constitutionalists...

Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement: Teaching Guide

*General Rule of the Warrant Requirement: Searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

5 Categorical Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement:

(1) Exigent Circumstances: anytime police can claim emergency and are required to act immediately, it is reasonable to execute a warrantless search or seizure.
* Many situations create circumstances under which it is unreasonable to expect the officer to obtain a warrant before search or arrest
-(4 Common Situations): Hot Pursuit of a Suspect, Threat of Imminent
Destruction of Evidence, Threat of Officer’s Safety, Suspect Escape.
Cases:
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978): (No “Murder Scene” Exception) States must meet a substantial burden to demonstrate an exceptional situation justifying a new exception to warrant requirement under the 4th and 14th Amendments.

Wesh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984): The gravity of the suspected offense is a factor to be considered in determining whether the exigent circumstances exception to the 4th may be invoked. (Minor Offenses May Not invoke an Exception)

Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967): [Fleeing Suspects] The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to delay in the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others.

Mendez v. Colorado, 986 P.2d 285 (Colo. 1999): [Destruction of Evidence] The smell of marijuana smoke justified dispensing with a warrant, “This odor indicated that evidence of a crime, that is, possession of marijuana was in the process of being burned and thereby destroyed.

(2) The Plain View Doctrine: An object of an incriminating nature may be seized without a warrant if it is in the plain view of a police officer lawfully present at the scene.
3 Elements:
(1) Lawful vantage point – At the time at which the police get to the location, they had to have been there lawfully.
Right to access to the object - An officer must have a lawful access to the object itself. (Physical Access)
(3) Right to seize is immediately apparent- The seizure of an article is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them.

more at link:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...28D5CA&usg=AFQjCNGPb3TWoPQ4SkFKyXckWp5yb8Wf8A

I am well aware of what the current law is, probably more aware than you are because I actually keep current on it. I specifically phrased my statement in a way that said what I meant. I am not talking about court decisions, presidential signing statements, or opinions of constitutional scholars. What I said, and you took exception to, is that the Constitution requires a warrant for a search.

I want you to show me in the Constitution that I am wrong. Or, you could admit that I am right.

 

[jillian]

Is this one of the Constitutional things you are never wrong about? Can you show exactly where the Constitution says anything about exceptions, including exigent circumstances?

i love the potshots you idiots toss around. nice that you can quote the constitution. maybe you should actually try reality i.e., caselaw:

Read/learn... it will do you good cause i'm really bored of you pretend constitutionalists...

Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement: Teaching Guide

*General Rule of the Warrant Requirement: Searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

5 Categorical Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement:

(1) Exigent Circumstances: anytime police can claim emergency and are required to act immediately, it is reasonable to execute a warrantless search or seizure.
* Many situations create circumstances under which it is unreasonable to expect the officer to obtain a warrant before search or arrest
-(4 Common Situations): Hot Pursuit of a Suspect, Threat of Imminent
Destruction of Evidence, Threat of Officer’s Safety, Suspect Escape.
Cases:
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978): (No “Murder Scene” Exception) States must meet a substantial burden to demonstrate an exceptional situation justifying a new exception to warrant requirement under the 4th and 14th Amendments.

Wesh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984): The gravity of the suspected offense is a factor to be considered in determining whether the exigent circumstances exception to the 4th may be invoked. (Minor Offenses May Not invoke an Exception)

Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967): [Fleeing Suspects] The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to delay in the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others.

Mendez v. Colorado, 986 P.2d 285 (Colo. 1999): [Destruction of Evidence] The smell of marijuana smoke justified dispensing with a warrant, “This odor indicated that evidence of a crime, that is, possession of marijuana was in the process of being burned and thereby destroyed.

(2) The Plain View Doctrine: An object of an incriminating nature may be seized without a warrant if it is in the plain view of a police officer lawfully present at the scene.
3 Elements:
(1) Lawful vantage point – At the time at which the police get to the location, they had to have been there lawfully.
Right to access to the object - An officer must have a lawful access to the object itself. (Physical Access)
(3) Right to seize is immediately apparent- The seizure of an article is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them.

more at link:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...28D5CA&usg=AFQjCNGPb3TWoPQ4SkFKyXckWp5yb8Wf8A

I am well aware of what the current law is, probably more aware than you are because I actually keep current on it. I specifically phrased my statement in a way that said what I meant. I am not talking about court decisions, presidential signing statements, or opinions of constitutional scholars. What I said, and you took exception to, is that the Constitution requires a warrant for a search.

I want you to show me in the Constitution that I am wrong. Or, you could admit that I am right.

it is irrelevant. the constitution doesn't exist in a vacuum. words have meanings under the law and are defined by the cases. the constitution doesn't protect you from SEARCHES. it protects you from UNREASONABLE searches. what is reasonable and unreasonable is defined by caselaw.

so what you're asking for is inconsistent with the law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Like checking the baggage of the 911 hijackers would have found the knives on their body?
Sheesh.

What makes you think they didn't find the knives they had, if they had knives? Box cutters were perfectly legal at the time, and they could have dropped them in the tray with their spare change.

Sheesh

generally they respond to things that have occurred before. so the 9.11 hijackers led to certain types of things being prohibited. then the shoe bomber resulted in a different type of search.

like i've said before. you have no constitutional right to fly. feel free to take a bus.

Gee whiz. I am so glad you explained it to me, I would never have known that.

If you actually go back and read the conversation to see the point I was making you will see that Drock was trying to argue that everyone should be searched. I made the point that the actual reason they fond the bomb in the luggage was that they profiled, they do not subject everyone to the same degree of searches.

Uscitizen then tried to argue that they would not have found the knives if they just searched checked baggage, another complete failure to get the point. I pointed out why that statement was absurd.

You then tried to make me look stupid by pointing out that they are responding to what has already happened. Believe it or not, you just made my point.

Security from the TSA is not designed to anticipate and prevent, it is designed to enure people that what happened in the past will not happen again. It is nothing but theater to make people feel safe, and does nothing to actually keep them safe.

Feel free to continue defending a complete waste of time and money just because it makes you feel marginally safer, just do not expect everyone else to react the same way and be afraid.

 

[jillian]

What makes you think they didn't find the knives they had, if they had knives? Box cutters were perfectly legal at the time, and they could have dropped them in the tray with their spare change.

Sheesh

generally they respond to things that have occurred before. so the 9.11 hijackers led to certain types of things being prohibited. then the shoe bomber resulted in a different type of search.

like i've said before. you have no constitutional right to fly. feel free to take a bus.

Gee whiz. I am so glad you explained it to me, I would never have known that.

If you actually go back and read the conversation to see the point I was making you will see that Drock was trying to argue that everyone should be searched. I made the point that the actual reason they fond the bomb in the luggage was that they profiled, they do not subject everyone to the same degree of searches.

Uscitizen then tried to argue that they would not have found the knives if they just searched checked baggage, another complete failure to get the point. I pointed out why that statement was absurd.

You then tried to make me look stupid by pointing out that they are responding to what has already happened. Believe it or not, you just made my point.

Security from the TSA is not designed to anticipate and prevent, it is designed to enure people that what happened in the past will not happen again. It is nothing but theater to make people feel safe, and does nothing to actually keep them safe.

Feel free to continue defending a complete waste of time and money just because it makes you feel marginally safer, just do not expect everyone else to react the same way and be afraid.

i know...all you "constitutionalists" want profiling. you figure what the heck if arabs are targeted as long as you're not an arab, right?

two words...

... timothy mcveigh.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i love the potshots you idiots toss around. nice that you can quote the constitution. maybe you should actually try reality i.e., caselaw:

Read/learn... it will do you good cause i'm really bored of you pretend constitutionalists...
more at link:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...28D5CA&usg=AFQjCNGPb3TWoPQ4SkFKyXckWp5yb8Wf8A

I am well aware of what the current law is, probably more aware than you are because I actually keep current on it. I specifically phrased my statement in a way that said what I meant. I am not talking about court decisions, presidential signing statements, or opinions of constitutional scholars. What I said, and you took exception to, is that the Constitution requires a warrant for a search.

I want you to show me in the Constitution that I am wrong. Or, you could admit that I am right.

it is irrelevant. the constitution doesn't exist in a vacuum. words have meanings under the law and are defined by the cases. the constitution doesn't protect you from SEARCHES. it protects you from UNREASONABLE searches. what is reasonable and unreasonable is defined by caselaw.

so what you're asking for is inconsistent with the law.

The constitution is never irrelevant.

The presumption under the constitution is that all searches are unreasonable. The courts have decided that the government needs the power to be able to make unreasonable searches and carved out rules where they say it does not apply. That does not make them right, any more than their ruling that the 14th Amendment did not apply civil rights laws to the states was right. I am sure you can think of many examples where the court has been wrong, just like I can.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

generally they respond to things that have occurred before. so the 9.11 hijackers led to certain types of things being prohibited. then the shoe bomber resulted in a different type of search.

like i've said before. you have no constitutional right to fly. feel free to take a bus.

Gee whiz. I am so glad you explained it to me, I would never have known that.

If you actually go back and read the conversation to see the point I was making you will see that Drock was trying to argue that everyone should be searched. I made the point that the actual reason they fond the bomb in the luggage was that they profiled, they do not subject everyone to the same degree of searches.

Uscitizen then tried to argue that they would not have found the knives if they just searched checked baggage, another complete failure to get the point. I pointed out why that statement was absurd.

You then tried to make me look stupid by pointing out that they are responding to what has already happened. Believe it or not, you just made my point.

Security from the TSA is not designed to anticipate and prevent, it is designed to enure people that what happened in the past will not happen again. It is nothing but theater to make people feel safe, and does nothing to actually keep them safe.

Feel free to continue defending a complete waste of time and money just because it makes you feel marginally safer, just do not expect everyone else to react the same way and be afraid.

i know...all you "constitutionalists" want profiling. you figure what the heck if arabs are targeted as long as you're not an arab, right?

two words...

... timothy mcveigh.

What a comeback.

I have specifically pointed out that we cannot do what El Al does in other threads. I believe that makes this a strawman, and thus a complete failure as a reply to my point.

 

[Toome]

Most German Citizens went along with Nazi atrocities. Unfortunately i'm seeing the same menatality here in the U.S. Our Government is in the process of testing us to see how much humiliation we are willing to endure in the name of "Security." Looks like the Government Goose Steppers are just fine with any humiliations. What does this say about our Nation's future? The Government will only keep testing and pushing. I don't see a bright future for our Nation. A full-fledged Police State is a very real possibility. It really is very sad.

Hate to pee in your pool, but many Germans were ignorant of the Holocaust. They knew that Jews were being rounded up but had no clue about the death camps. Many Germans were not members of the Nazi Party, and the same holds for many German soldiers. Ambitious German officers joined out of political correctness.

None of this, of course, applies to your little spin about airport security. The Gestapo implemented secret police tactics. TSA is pretty open about their screening procedures. Screeners explain what they're going to do before they do it. And whenever there's some flap over screening procedures, TSA goes out of its way to change, perhaps not to your or my satisfaction, but it does change procedures. Example: a few years ago I couldn't take my scissors, lighter or screwdriver aboard in carry-on luggage. Now I'm not too happy about the drink restrictions and am not happy about only being able to drink beverages purchased at the airport, but I'm not going to flail my arms in the air and scream that the constitutional sky is falling. I'm more pissed off at the little additional fees the airlines charge for checked luggage than I am about having to wait in line for security.

But it's all a matter of perspective of knowing what's a real infringement and what isn't.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Sure,just keep on lining up like oblivious cattle for your public humiliations. And don't worry,more Government-sponsored humiliations are on the way. Like cattle being led to slaughter. Too many Goose Steppers and not enough brave Americans. Things are only going to get worse.

 

[bucs90]

Folks, if you start to exclude people from searches, thats how the terrorist will smuggle things in. You know blackmail people to doing what they want.

Its not only to prevent terrorist attacks, but drug cartel using little kids to smuggle their drugs in. You don't think they do that? You're highly mistaken. You can't start excluding people, you open up avenues for terrorism, drug muling and other criminal enterprises.

But they told us the TSA is now sexually assaulting people in the name of stopping terrorists, not drug smuggling. And yes, if you did that to a female at a bar unwanted, the police would arrest you for simple assault at least, possibly sexual assault.

So when we see the next plane explode because a 6 year old white girl smuggled a bomb on board, well, then my opinion will change.

But until then, why aren't we focusing on young to mid age Muslim males first, then others if they show suspicious behavior accordingly? The TSA said they are doing this to catch terrorists. Well, almost every dame terrorist who has ever hijacked a plane is a Muslim male. I don't need to be a God damn FBI detective to figure this shit out.

 

[bucs90]

generally they respond to things that have occurred before. so the 9.11 hijackers led to certain types of things being prohibited. then the shoe bomber resulted in a different type of search.

like i've said before. you have no constitutional right to fly. feel free to take a bus.

Gee whiz. I am so glad you explained it to me, I would never have known that.

If you actually go back and read the conversation to see the point I was making you will see that Drock was trying to argue that everyone should be searched. I made the point that the actual reason they fond the bomb in the luggage was that they profiled, they do not subject everyone to the same degree of searches.

Uscitizen then tried to argue that they would not have found the knives if they just searched checked baggage, another complete failure to get the point. I pointed out why that statement was absurd.

You then tried to make me look stupid by pointing out that they are responding to what has already happened. Believe it or not, you just made my point.

Security from the TSA is not designed to anticipate and prevent, it is designed to enure people that what happened in the past will not happen again. It is nothing but theater to make people feel safe, and does nothing to actually keep them safe.

Feel free to continue defending a complete waste of time and money just because it makes you feel marginally safer, just do not expect everyone else to react the same way and be afraid.

i know...all you "constitutionalists" want profiling. you figure what the heck if arabs are targeted as long as you're not an arab, right?

two words...

... timothy mcveigh.

Hey ya spineless liberal guess what?

The TSA would NOT have caught McVeigh. He didn't board a plane you dumb fuck.

99.9% of plane hijackings/attempted/actual explosions are done by young to mid age Muslim males. So why are we fondling 6 year old white girls who are brought in by a mid age white female soccer mom?